By tougher opposition you mean Fed himself, of course. Other than that, they have generally played and lost to the same players. I see what you mean though, how can you have tougher opposition than the GOAT?

By tougher opposition you mean Fed himself, of course. Other than that, they have generally played and lost to the same players. I see what you mean though, how can you have tougher opposition than the GOAT?

Click to expand...

Fed himself, and Novak.

I mean, really, lots of people have no problem pointing out the players Rafa beat in RG and Wimbledon in 2010.

Fed was the one who had to face Novak in an unbelievable amount of semifinals (defying the odds). Don't blame Fed for the fact that you don't consider Nadal tough competition, or that you lack faith in his ability to make it past the second round.

I can't dispute your overall point though, of course Fed is the toughest competition of them all.

Fed was the one who had to face Novak in an unbelievable amount of semifinals (defying the odds). Don't blame Fed for the fact that you don't consider Nadal tough competition, or that you lack faith in his ability to make it past the second round.

I can't dispute your overall point though, of course Fed is the toughest competition of them all.

Click to expand...

Fed didn't have to face Novak (nor Rafa) much when he won most of his slams. Not at all the case with Nadal.

not a matchup issue per se....because a matchup issue is when you get a guy like rosol who can't beat anyone else but beats Nadal. In the case of Nadal he beat everyone and has 11 slams to prove it. That's not a matchup issue....he is just that good.

Panetta is not a matchup issue.....he was an incredible player and won the FO.....rosol never really did anything. Big difference

But I do see somewhat of an analogy.

When Borg came on the scene baseline play was all the rage. Borg didn't face that many serve and volleyers and when he did he lost many times.

Mcenroe brought the serve and volley back and that was a huge problem for Borg,

Same with Nadal....he brought clay court tennis back....a style that has basically died......today's players are not used to it. And it presents a big problem for them .

Click to expand...

Baseline play was all the rage when Borg came? You know NOTHING. NOTHING. That's the most ignorant thing I've heard on here, and that's saying something. Borg was the one who made it popular.

Fed didn't have to face Novak (nor Rafa) much when he won most of his slams. Not at all the case with Nadal.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, Crisstti--why does the Nadal fanbase insist on spouting absolute nonsense like, all the time?

Let's not talk about the guys Nadal didn't have to face (and Federer did) as he was too young, as this would disprove your point too fast, obviously. And we wouldn't want that, would we? Nadal faced Federer in five slams off clay and Federer faced Nadal in five slams on clay, so I would say this kind of evens things out (I won't go into the age issue, but if we went there, we would see that things aren't even--still, let's forget about that, too).

Now, Djokovic. You're right, Nadal has been awfully unlucky, he's had to face Djokovic 9 times in slams. Fed, the lucky guy who had no competition at all, had to face him... 11 times.

So I guess you learned maths in the same school Trolling Day & Knight did, ie 9 > 11 as far as you're concerned, but still...

So, even forgetting the players from the past that Federer had to face and Nadal didn't (Agassi, strong Hewitt and Nalbandian, Safin, Roddick when he was #1), even forgetting the fact that, when they started playing on surfaces that favour Federer, he was already past his prime, just using your own parameters and allowing for your usual contingent of excuses, it turns out that Federer faced stiffer competition than Nadal did at the slams (which I guess everyone knew anyway).

Oh, I would love to know the results of the main events held during the Jeu de Pomme years.A Davis Cup jeu de Pomme contest must have been the most exciting and probably bleeding event ever held...thanks for bringing it up.

Click to expand...

Same here I wonder how many CGS Laver would have won.
Roswell's BH slice would probably be at 1million mph.

That's the thing, Crisstti--why does the Nadal fanbase insist on spouting absolute nonsense like, all the time?

Let's not talk about the guys Nadal didn't have to face (and Federer did) as he was too young, as this would disprove your point too fast, obviously. And we wouldn't want that, would we? Nadal faced Federer in five slams off clay and Federer faced Nadal in five slams on clay, so I would say this kind of evens things out (I won't go into the age issue, but if we went there, we would see that things aren't even--still, let's forget about that, too).

Now, Djokovic. You're right, Nadal has been awfully unlucky, he's had to face Djokovic 9 times in slams. Fed, the lucky guy who had no competition at all, had to face him... 11 times.

So I guess you learned maths in the same school Trolling Day & Knight did, ie 9 > 11 as far as you're concerned, but still...

So, even forgetting the players from the past that Federer had to face and Nadal didn't (Agassi, strong Hewitt and Nalbandian, Safin, Roddick when he was #1), even forgetting the fact that, when they started playing on surfaces that favour Federer, he was already past his prime, just using your own parameters and allowing for your usual contingent of excuses, it turns out that Federer faced stiffer competition than Nadal did at the slams (which I guess everyone knew anyway).

As you will see only at the end of his career did he face Mcenroe and gerulatis , serve and volleyers. He did fave tanner....who was more of just a serve similar to Roddick....but ok .

Click to expand...

Basliners would be the ones he faced in French Open finals, it's clay. You except people to S/V there? :lol: Jimmy Connors is the one exception. Lendl came after so you can't use him to argue, "Baseline-play was all the rage when Borg came into the scene". Like I said, you're ignorant.

Right, so now we can move on to the tiebreaker. Number of slams, weeks at number one, or whatever else floats your boat. Perhaps the total amount of bacteria transferred from your butt to your face throughout your career?

It wasn't the point being discussed. It was what he had on his favour in goat discussions, and him having beaten tougher competition on slam finals is something he's got on his favour.

Click to expand...

What about the excuse part?

I was just laying it out for you in general though. Your opinion of his hard court competition has nothing to do with reality, of course. Unless you mean it in the sense that we have discussed before, which boils down to the fact that Federer can't play himself.

We can just as easily say that all the good hard courters started to decline and were replaced with grinders, or that hard courts were slowed down enough to allow Nadal to grind his way to victory. Either way, records speak for themselves in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

I was just laying it out for you in general though. Your opinion of his hard court competition has nothing to do with reality, of course. Unless you mean it in the sense that we have discussed before, which boils down to the fact that Federer can't play himself.

We can just as easily say that all the good hard courters started to decline and were replaced with grinders, or that hard courts were slowed down enough to allow Nadal to grind his way to victory. Either way, records speak for themselves in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

Click to expand...

What excuse?.

No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.

No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.

Click to expand...

And that is a moot point. Because when Federer didn't play them, he played guys who were stronger than them at that time. During his first US Open finals, for example, playing Nadal or Djokovic would have been easier than playing Hewitt, Agassi, or Roddick. And that's not even close.

No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.

Click to expand...

I meant the part where you acted like the person who had to hear the excuse was butthurt rather than the person giving it.

Grumping about Federer not facing Nadal is ok I guess (even though it's still grumping at best, and irrelevant at worst), but Djokovic? Federer was the only player to beat him in a slam in '11, he recently beat him at Wimbledon, and Murray afterwards; I hope that's not too shabby for weak-eraists.

And of course, as always, one must marvel at how Federer is perceived to be the only player able to sustain the same "level" on all surfaces; at his best whenever and wherever, since 2004.

It's also hilarious that Federer gets this weak-era oppurtunist treatment and Nadal is lauded because he faced...Federer in the finals. That's another thing, to think a slam is worth "less" because the opponent in the final is not "worthy". I'd assume Nadal would be the first person to say Roland Garros is not his title by right, and he still has to win 6 matches just to get to the final. Nadal is hands down the best player on clay and RG, not because he beat Federer in most of the finals, but because he managed to win the tournament by winning 7 matches, each time. This will sound weird to most but I believe his best performance at Wimbledon was 2010 and not 2008, beating Berdych in the final didn't change the fact that he had to play some flawless 5-set matches in the earlier rounds and stayed untouchable for the rest.

Ultimately this is what Federer has done in each his slam wins, this is why his consistency in particular at all slams is his most impressive achievement, and I would say it invalidates any weak-era argument you can throw at him; it's not easy to reach many semis and finals at slams, and doing it consistently is likely the hardest thing in this sport. At the end of the day he also has beaten each of the other trio at least once in slams.

Okay so what's this thread about again, why Nadal is a GOAT candidate? It's such cheesy phrases "GOAT", "GOAT candidate". Nadal is one of the greatest ever, I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise.

No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.

Click to expand...

There are/were also a whole bunch of threads about Nadal serving a silent ban after Wimbledon this year, about him getting cakewalk draws, about him being the biggest cheater in tennis etc. People discussing a specific topic here hardly counts that much to be honest.

Grumping about Federer not facing Nadal is ok I guess (even though it's still grumping at best, and irrelevant at worst), but Djokovic? Federer was the only player to beat him in a slam in '11, he recently beat him at Wimbledon, and Murray afterwards; I hope that's not too shabby for weak-eraists.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is, if we presume that Novak really came into his own in 2011, even since then Fed faced him in slams more than Nadal, 5 times to Nadal's 4.

And of course, as always, one must marvel at how Federer is perceived to be the only player able to sustain the same "level" on all surfaces; at his best whenever and wherever, since 2004.

Click to expand...

Oh definitely, it never ceases to amaze me on this forum how Fed is supposed to be like some fine wine that gets better with age while the other members of the top 4 have so many slumps, peaks, injuries and massive declines that it's hard to keep track.

It wasn't the point being discussed. It was what he had on his favour in goat discussions, and him having beaten tougher competition on slam finals is something he's got on his favour.

Click to expand...

He faced Federer throughout his career a guy whom he didn't even need to match most of the time to beat him. Considering Federer tough competition is only accurate if you take him by name value. The actual performance he was forced to come up with were typically less impressive than most of the performances Federer had to come up with.

The reason why Djokovic crushed him so often in 2011 is because pummeling a guys backhand doesn't work if he hits it with 2 hands and has any real quality.

There are/were also a whole bunch of threads about Nadal serving a silent ban after Wimbledon this year, about him getting cakewalk draws, about him being the biggest cheater in tennis etc. People discussing a specific topic here hardly counts that much to be honest.

Click to expand...

What is so wrong about Nadal serving a silent ban? You are aware that this isn't all that unlikely, given the regulations of the ATP, right? If you have a positive test, you are barred from playing, but your positive test will not be published. Only if the case is closed (CAS rules against the player, B sample is also positive etc) the case is published. If the athlete gets a therapeutical use excemption retroactively for example, he can get acquitted and thus, the original positive test will never be published.

This way, the player has served a "silent ban". The fact that you consider this some sort of impossibility or a joke, shows how clueless you seem to be.

What is so wrong about Nadal serving a silent ban? You are aware that this isn't all that unlikely, given the regulations of the ATP, right? If you have a positive test, you are barred from playing, but your positive test will not be published. Only if the case is closed (CAS rules against the player, B sample is also positive etc) the case is published. If the athlete gets a therapeutical use excemption retroactively for example, he can get acquitted and thus, the original positive test will never be published.

This way, the player has served a "silent ban". The fact that you consider this some sort of impossibility or a joke, shows how clueless you seem to be.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the point of his post. The whole silent ban issue has been discussed ad nauseam. Why don't you go and make another thread about it.

What is so wrong about Nadal serving a silent ban? You are aware that this isn't all that unlikely, given the regulations of the ATP, right? If you have a positive test, you are barred from playing, but your positive test will not be published. Only if the case is closed (CAS rules against the player, B sample is also positive etc) the case is published. If the athlete gets a therapeutical use excemption retroactively for example, he can get acquitted and thus, the original positive test will never be published.

Click to expand...

Never said it was right or wrong, impossibility or a joke, I personally don't think Nadal is serving a silent ban but I'm not dismissing any possibility (including that not just Nadal but other top players/stars are doping as well, yes even Fed with his "smooth" game).

I merely used those examples I know she (Chrissti) disagrees with to illustrate a point.

Never said it was right or wrong, impossibility or a joke, I personally don't think Nadal is serving a silent ban but I'm not dismissing any possibility (including that not just Nadal but other top players/stars are doping as well, yes even Fed with his "smooth" game).

I merely used those examples I know she (Chrissti) disagrees with to illustrate a point.

Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

Click to expand...

Possible.

I never denied that Federer is possibly on the juice. But it is much more of a certainly when you look at Djokovic or Nadal.

Right, so now we can move on to the tiebreaker. Number of slams, weeks at number one, or whatever else floats your boat. Perhaps the total amount of bacteria transferred from your butt to your face throughout your career?

Click to expand...

Sounds like someone has already made up his mind, based upon an esoteric, scientific criterion.

Sounds like someone has already made up his mind, based upon an esoteric, scientific criterion.

Click to expand...

I was only asking for your advice on how to break the tie. I do agree that if the last last condition is enough, then there shouldn't be any more debate. I also failed to read any posts that claimed that a career grand slam was sufficient for a player to be the GOAT, only that it was a requirement.

Wanna be a GOAT? At least have the same resume as the guy in front of you, then we'll talk. Until then, happy hunting...
Right now, the only things going for Rafa are: 1)H2H vs Fed. Not even sure it should be in consideration since one plays against a bunch of other players in every tournament, and not just one guy, 2)his FO record. That's VERY impressive. However many already pointed out, this record gives him the title of "surface GOAT", but not "GOAT". So many more to accomplish. Until then, let's NOT waste our breath.

According to some, you mean few Nadal fans like TDK. And there are Laver fans who believe a Grand Slam alone is enough for goat candidate. No so fast. Career slam or a Grand Slam is not enough because that's only 1 criteria. The full picture is the entire career achievement, which should take EVERYTHING into account.

According to some, you mean few Nadal fans like TDK. And there are Laver fans who believe a Grand Slam alone is enough for goat candidate. No so fast. Career slam or a Grand Slam is not enough because that's only 1 criteria. The full picture is the entire career achievement, which should take EVERYTHING into account.

Click to expand...

That's right !

And the fact that Federer has a losing record to his main rival and baaaaaaaaarely has a slam on clay means he can't be the goat to me.

I mean that FO was only becaise Nadal was having issues in my opinion . Whatever he barely he has it.

Nadal on the other hand has two grass slams and two harcourt slams .....2 of which were against Federer the supposed goat....

To boot Nadal has a hardcourt at the Olympics in only one try. Fed has not won it in 3 attempts on hard or indoor grass.